USCA11 Case: 21-10323 Date Filed: 11/30/2021 Page: 1 of 11 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 21-10323 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ JOSE L. SALGADO-ESCAMILLA, Petitioner, versus U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent. ____________________ Petition for Review of a Decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals Agency No. A089-787-399 ____________________ USCA11 Case: 21-10323 Date Filed: 11/30/2021 Page: 2 of 11 21-10323 Opinion of the Court 2 Before JILL PRYOR, LUCK, and TJOFLAT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Jose Salgado-Escamilla (“Salgado-Escamilla”), a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks review of a Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) order denying his motion to reopen his removal proceedings. On appeal, Salgado argues that the BIA abused its discretion in denying his motion to reopen as untimely and number-barred. Salgado-Escamilla also argues that the BIA failed to give reasoned consideration to his claim for equitable tolling based on his allegation that he received ineffective assistance of counsel at his merits hearing. Finally, Salgado-Escamilla argues that the BIA abused its discretion in failing to give reasoned consideration to his request to sua sponte reopen his removal proceedings. I. Salgado-Escamilla is a native and citizen of Mexico who illegally entered the United States at some point in time. On March 1, 2015, a Notice to Appear was issued charging Salgado-Escamilla as removable pursuant to INA § 212(a)(6)(A)(i), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i), and INA § 212(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I). On March 18, 2015, through his then counsel, Elizabeth Bryan, Salgado-Escamilla conceded that he was an illegal alien and that he was removable as charged. Four months later, and now represented by Charles Trulock (“Trulock”), Salgado- USCA11 Case: 21-10323 Date Filed: 11/30/2021 Page: 3 of 11 21-10323 Opinion of the Court 3 Escamilla filed an application for cancellation of removal under INA § 240A(b)(1). To be eligible for cancellation of removal under § 240A(b)(1) of the INA, an individual must establish (1) that he has been physically present in the United States for a continuous period of not less than 10 years; (2) has been a person of good moral character during such period; (3) has not been convicted of an offense under Section 212(a)(2), 237(a)(2), or 237(a)(3) of the Act, and (4) that his removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to a spouse, parent, or child who is a citizen of the United States or an alien admitted for lawful permanent residence. Although the Immigration Judge (the “IJ”) found Salgado- Escamilla met the first three requirements for eligibility, the IJ found that he had failed to establish that his removal would result in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to his only qualifying relative: his eight-year-old son. Salgado-Escamilla testified that, were he to be deported, he would take his son to Mexico with him and that this would be a hardship to the child. The IJ, however, found no evidence in the record to suggest that the move to Mexico would work an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals